Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?
Well, you use them to assault people. Of course, that would sort of be the definition of ANY weapon. In fact, that would be what MAKES something a weapon, wouldn't it?
I'm still waiting for someone to coin the term "Assault Knife" or "Assault Chrysler" or "Assault Sword"
At the end of the day, the US is one of the most violent countries in the Western World. It's too late for any type of gun control....let them have their guns....
That's kind of a given, considering that the U.S. is also one of the largest countries in the world, which mean that we're probably one of the world's "most" of alot of things.
Does anyone ever wonder why we're having so much trouble quelling the uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's because everyone has a frickin gun. I belive American citizens owning guns provides the same protection against foreign invasion....now let's see how many people say that a foreign invasion is impossible in this day in age....
I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?
Well, you use them to assault people. Of course, that would sort of be the definition of ANY weapon. In fact, that would be what MAKES something a weapon, wouldn't it?
I'm still waiting for someone to coin the term "Assault Knife" or "Assault Chrysler" or "Assault Sword"
As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?
Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.
As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?
Well, you use them to assault people. Of course, that would sort of be the definition of ANY weapon. In fact, that would be what MAKES something a weapon, wouldn't it?
I'm still waiting for someone to coin the term "Assault Knife" or "Assault Chrysler" or "Assault Sword"
The primary function of a car is to drive, what is the primary function of a gun? to kill.
That aside, the variances of guns vs knifes is quite different. The difference between your average steak knife and a sharpened Bowie knife is negligable compared to a single-shot rifle vs one of these [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=403aklHwL9g"]mofos[/ame]...
Correct. A car is designed for transport. However, a car is designed to be driven by a competent and sober person, not for drunken idiots and incompetent drivers who kill more people with their cars per year than guns....Much in the same way that guns are made to be sold to law-abiding citizens and used responsibly rather than to criminals and nut-jobs. So by the same sense, we should ban cars because a few idiots are using them irresponsibly.
Correct. A car is designed for transport. However, a car is designed to be driven by a competent and sober person, not for drunken idiots and incompetent drivers who kill more people with their cars per year than guns....Much in the same way that guns are made to be sold to law-abiding citizens and used responsibly rather than to criminals and nut-jobs. So by the same sense, we should ban cars because a few idiots are using them irresponsibly.
You would have to show a correlation between the number of gun owners and deaths caused by guns. And the correlation of the number of cars owned and the number of people killed by drunk drivers....
I'm not talking a numbers game. I'm responding to your comment about guns being desinged to kill and cars being designed to drive. I'm saying that not all guns are designed to kill, and even guns that are designed to kill are not always used for that purpose. And guns are also designed and intented to be sold to competent, law-abiding citizens. However, sometimes these guns are used by incompetent, nonlaw-abiding citizens, much like cars are many times used by incompetent drunken drivers.
I'm not talking a numbers game. I'm responding to your comment about guns being desinged to kill and cars being designed to drive. I'm saying that not all guns are designed to kill, and even guns that are designed to kill are not always used for that purpose. And guns are also designed and intented to be sold to competent, law-abiding citizens. However, sometimes these guns are used by incompetent, nonlaw-abiding citizens, much like cars are many times used by incompetent drunken drivers.
The vast majority of guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to be driven. And a numbers game is relevent IMO...
IMO guns are a privilege not a right. And where I'm from they are (I'm from NZ). Like a car, you need a license to own a firearm, and you are restricted in the type of firearm you can have access to.
The vast majority of guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to be driven. And a numbers game is relevent IMO...
IMO guns are a privilege not a right. And where I'm from they are (I'm from NZ). Like a car, you need a license to own a firearm, and you are restricted in the type of firearm you can have access to.
You're entitled to your opinion, and in New Zealand it may be the same, but there is a huge fundamental difference in the U.S. between driving a car and having a gun. A gun is granted as a right in the United States Constitution while a driving a car. Here in the U.S., driving a car is a privilege and therefore requires a license. As far as the numbers game, I've been looking somethings up. I'm not going to post it all here like a scholastic debate, but I did read where there are some 250 million cars in the U.S., and the deaths per year from automobiles range around 12,000. There and estimated 350 million guns in the United States (that are accounted for). That's one per person, and the homicide rate was somewhere around 11,000. I don't count suicide with this because someone who's going to kill themselves will find a way regardless of having a gun or not. So most statistics show that there are roughly 100 million more guns than cars and still a lower death rate in the U.S. that is. I would post all of this junk but frankly I just don't feel like it. I'm at work...lol
The vast majority of guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to be driven. And a numbers game is relevent IMO...
IMO guns are a privilege not a right. And where I'm from they are (I'm from NZ). Like a car, you need a license to own a firearm, and you are restricted in the type of firearm you can have access to.
You're entitled to your opinion, and in New Zealand it may be the same, but there is a huge fundamental difference in the U.S. between driving a car and having a gun. A gun is granted as a right in the United States Constitution while a driving a car. Here in the U.S., driving a car is a privilege and therefore requires a license. As far as the numbers game, I've been looking somethings up. I'm not going to post it all here like a scholastic debate, but I did read where there are some 250 million cars in the U.S., and the deaths per year from automobiles range around 12,000. There and estimated 350 million guns in the United States (that are accounted for). That's one per person, and the homicide rate was somewhere around 11,000. I don't count suicide with this because someone who's going to kill themselves will find a way regardless of having a gun or not. So most statistics show that there are roughly 100 million more guns than cars and still a lower death rate in the U.S. that is. I would post all of this junk but frankly I just don't feel like it. I'm at work...lol
oh, I've been on messageboards for 10 years now, and have had the gun debate over and over again more times than I care to remember. I know about our fundatmental differences, just letting you know where I'm coming from.
Are those auto deaths related to drunk driving only? To me that is the fair comparison. If you don't include suicides (I would also put in deaths caused in hunting accidents and accidental discharges), then you cannot include car incidents that are true accidents either (as opposed to drunk drivers or cases where cars are indeed used as a murder weapon)....
At the end of the day, the US is one of the most violent countries in the Western World. It's too late for any type of gun control....let them have their guns....
That's kind of a given, considering that the U.S. is also one of the largest countries in the world, which mean that we're probably one of the world's "most" of alot of things.
Does anyone ever wonder why we're having so much trouble quelling the uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's because everyone has a frickin gun. I belive American citizens owning guns provides the same protection against foreign invasion....now let's see how many people say that a foreign invasion is impossible in this day in age....
I'm talking per head of population. Whenever I make statement like this, that is what I mean. Talking numbers - ie the highest number wins - doesn't make sense. IMO, the number of incidents per 1000 or 100,000 or whatever, gives an overall better picture of the state of a society.
So is it is a good thing that the citizens of Iraq are armed as such?
Correct. A car is designed for transport. However, a car is designed to be driven by a competent and sober person, not for drunken idiots and incompetent drivers who kill more people with their cars per year than guns....Much in the same way that guns are made to be sold to law-abiding citizens and used responsibly rather than to criminals and nut-jobs. So by the same sense, we should ban cars because a few idiots are using them irresponsibly.
You would have to show a correlation between the number of gun owners and deaths caused by guns. And the correlation of the number of cars owned and the number of people killed by drunk drivers....
In an earlier post, I spoke of artillery pieces. Surely, the framers of the second amendment were familiar with those. As they could not foresee the stupidity of gun designers and their ability to put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the public, they included the 'well regulated militia' phrase to cover this contingency. Unless someone absolutely needs a cannon to defend his apartment.As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.
As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?
Okay, now you're just deflecting.
"The Second Amendment is about militia members. No, wait, I'm only talking about assault weapons! Forget what I just said, that you just proved wrong!"
You are correct that militias are mentioned in the Second Amendment for a reason. You are incorrect in your original assertion, from which you cravenly backpedaled, that it was to limit the right to keep and bear arms to only those people and that purpose. You are FURTHER incorrect in the assertion that it was to restrict the ownership of assault weapons, defined by you as high-capacity magazines and semi- or full auto firing systems, to militias and their members, since those things didn't exist at the time.
The purpose of that phrase is simple: It is to provide a reason for specifically delineating the right to keep and bear arms in its own Amendment, rather than leaving its protection up to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
In an earlier post, I spoke of artillery pieces. Surely, the framers of the second amendment were familiar with those. As they could not foresee the stupidity of gun designers and their ability to put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the public, they included the 'well regulated militia' phrase to cover this contingency. Unless someone absolutely needs a cannon to defend his apartment.As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.
Okay, now you're just deflecting.
"The Second Amendment is about militia members. No, wait, I'm only talking about assault weapons! Forget what I just said, that you just proved wrong!"
You are correct that militias are mentioned in the Second Amendment for a reason. You are incorrect in your original assertion, from which you cravenly backpedaled, that it was to limit the right to keep and bear arms to only those people and that purpose. You are FURTHER incorrect in the assertion that it was to restrict the ownership of assault weapons, defined by you as high-capacity magazines and semi- or full auto firing systems, to militias and their members, since those things didn't exist at the time.
The purpose of that phrase is simple: It is to provide a reason for specifically delineating the right to keep and bear arms in its own Amendment, rather than leaving its protection up to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Your opinion is wrong.I'm not talking a numbers game. I'm responding to your comment about guns being desinged to kill and cars being designed to drive. I'm saying that not all guns are designed to kill, and even guns that are designed to kill are not always used for that purpose. And guns are also designed and intented to be sold to competent, law-abiding citizens. However, sometimes these guns are used by incompetent, nonlaw-abiding citizens, much like cars are many times used by incompetent drunken drivers.
The vast majority of guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to be driven. And a numbers game is relevent IMO...
IMO guns are a privilege not a right. And where I'm from they are (I'm from NZ). Like a car, you need a license to own a firearm, and you are restricted in the type of firearm you can have access to.
I did, a few posts after the OP - and there are several examples in this topic as well.Care to give an example? Without one it's just useless flamebait.What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.
If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?
Why is it you refuse to directly address the issues put directly to you?A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?
Neither were telephones, cable TV or the internet.Not every law is in the constitution, is it? Can you legally own a machine gun without any registration? Guess what! Machine guns were not on the radar of 18th century lawmakers!I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected. I never will agree that putting that type of weapon in the hands of the public is something our founders would have endorsed. I believe the destruction wrought by such weapons is self evident and should be admitted as People's Exhibit A when the indictments against manufacturers are issued.
I think such weapons bear as much regulatory scrutiny as a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a flame thrower.
But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.
If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized. Drugs wreak just as much havoc as guns. And the drugs don't kill. The people using drugs kill. Just like guns.
Just curious, where in the Constitution do you have the right to take away my guns?
